These Are Me Links

So marriage in this country isn't exactly the sacred institution it was once thought to be. What has changed? Is it our reasons for marrying? Is it the ease and expectation of it all? Isn't it harder to get onto an airplane now than it is to get married? Did Dennis Rodman, Brittany Spears, Married by America, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance do it for you?

I wondered if marriage is the doomsday device I've often thought it to be. Because I don't believe in the institution, I believe in the two people who form their union together. Like any merger, it's a good idea if initiated for the right reasons. That's usually the whole love thing. But that isn't enough, is it? What about shared values, communication, and similar attitudes? If you think about it, that's what makes a business merger successful. If you do it just for profit, you end up like AOL and Time Warner -- continued operation doesn't equal success. And what is the marriage equivalent, you ask? Getting married because of children.

Which brings me to the Why Wedding I attended this weekend. Without going into a storied past, let's just say I work with Bride and from all accounts I've heard from her, Groom is a bum. He's done things that are simply unacceptable. Allegedly he's changed but whatever. I think the marriage is because they had a child. There was NO talk of a marriage prior to said birth. So this all brings us to the big question, "Why, oh why?"

I felt bad about not wanting to go, so I guilted myself into it. And I was too lazy to fabricate a modest excuse. So two coworkers and I decide to attend the best part of the wedding -- the reception. Which sounds like an ass thing to do, but here are the reasons:

1) Everyone in our office was directed to an invitation on the bulletin board -- we didn't even get a personalized card. It was an unvitation. A snarky question by a friend, "Were there little pull tabs at the bottom you could rip off?" LOL

2) Bride is truly just a coworker - not a friend or acquaintance. She's nice, don't get me wrong. There's just nothing more to it.

3) There are no freebies at the wedding ceremony.

4) This was a Why Wedding in which we didn't exactly support the union.

So we arrive and see Smartens and Rasmatic pull up. I'm all "Did you guys ditch the wedding, too?" Smartens is like, "No we went. There were only 20 or so people there." Cue the needle-across-the-record sound effect. We'd been had! Our absence was conspicuously so. In fact, we saw Bride and got what was either a crook-eye or stink-eye. Either way, we were on her pooh list. Maybe she'd think we were just there for the food, which is mostly true. Hey, we showed up to support this fauxship when no one else would, isn't that enough?

Let me just run down a few observations from this reception:

1) Groom and Bride barely interacted. Mostly during the coreographed events (like making the entrance, cutting the cake, the toast). Elsewise, he was elsewhere.

2) I thought I was down-dressed in my button-down collared shirt (untucked) and herringbone khakis... until Dude showed up in jeans and a tanktop (of undershirt quality). Suddenly I was quite dapper.

3) One of the pregnant bridesmaids was smoking. I repeat, the pregnant bridesmaid was smoking.

4) We formulated our exit strategy since we arrived, and finally organized an escape through the closest means of egress without even getting cake. Had to cut our losses.

I could tell you more, but then I'd just sound like a catty shrew. Instead I come off as a pompous, judgemental ass -- and I'm more comfortable in that role.

This whole experience got me thinking. As for gay marriage bans across the nation, perhaps it is a blessing to be spared such a fate. Because if two people love each other, they can easily live happily ever after without a marriage. Symbols are not guarantees. And if you think about it, a marital union is a kind of financial merger involving two partners. And as commercialism goes, marriage and divorce are really for-profit businesses, just like death and prison. And isn't funny that my mind immediately made that connection? I've said enough...

6 comments:

Wisconsin has so called Marriage "Protection" amendment on the fall ballot. "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

The way I see it the second sentence contradicts the first and invalidates all marriages. After all a marriage is a legal status substantially similar to a marriage. On top of that the first sentence defining marriage is self referential which violates the basic tenet that a given word cannot be used to define itself.

Allie -- no, no divorce pool has been initiated. I think we're too lazy about this marriage to put up bets on the divorce!

Robert -- I think that kind of reasoning is also called a tautology, if memory serves me. I wished they'd stop hiding behind their lawyer-ese and say, no queers and polygamists allowed. Just be straight with us! LOL

The U.S. Sumpreme court overturned sodemy laws two years ago, right? My personal feeling is that the government should keep it's buisness out of the bedroom. The fundementalists just want laws that give justification for them to bury their heads in the sand like an osterich. "If I don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist"

I like the title of this and as a coworker who tagged along with you, his name was Bubba....and the way that undershirt hung on his back with the mullet and the jeans, facial hair.....whew, is it getting hot in here?